JUDGMENT & ORDER : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. The present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the Order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Kohima, Nagaland, in CMC No. 2/2020 arising out of Civil Suit No.2/2017. 2. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by questioning the propriety of the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kohima whereby the learned trial court allowed the amendment in the plaint at a belated stage after the commencement of the trial. 3. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. T. Jamir, assisted Mr. Imkong Jamir and also Mr. R. Iralu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. L. Iralu. The Deputy Commissioner, Kohima is represented by Mr. K. Angami, Senior Govt Advocate. 4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this petition is that sometime in 1968-1969 the Government had started the process of acquiring land at Aradura, Kohima belonging to Kohima and Phesama village which was proposed to be acquired by the Department of Transport and Communication, Nagaland for the Nagaland State Transport (NST). 5. The Transport Department was asked to deposit a sum of Rupees two lakhs, towards the cost of land to be paid to the land owners. The Transport Department had deposited the said amount and as such the department acquired the land from eight different land owners and to that effect the Gaonbura of T-Khel, Kohima Village has also certified the purchase of the land by the Transport department. The said land in question was thereafter, acquired by the NST Department through the District Administration. 6. After acquisition of the land by the Government, the construction work was taken up and on completion of necessary official formalities the Public Works Department, Government of Nagaland, undertook and completed the construction of the Office cum NST garage and staff quarters on the said land. 7. Sometime in the mid 80s, one Mr. Vilalie Seletsu started claiming right of the land acquired by the Transport Department and as such, the Chief Manager NST on 18.12.1985 and 17.07.1986 wrote complaint letters to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima. 8. On 04.01.2002, Mr. 7. Sometime in the mid 80s, one Mr. Vilalie Seletsu started claiming right of the land acquired by the Transport Department and as such, the Chief Manager NST on 18.12.1985 and 17.07.1986 wrote complaint letters to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima. 8. On 04.01.2002, Mr. Vilalie Seletsu again submitted a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima contending that the land acquired by the NST Department is his ancestral property. To settle the complaint of the parties, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner issued the notices dated 11.02.2002, 27.02.2002, 02.04.2002 and 01.05.2002 to all the stakeholders. A spot verification of the land was also conducted along with the parties by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Kohima and the Report was submitted on 07.05.2002. On examining, and verifying the claims the Revenue Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima ascertained that the land in question has been acquired by the Government in the year 1970 and accordingly, rejected the claims of Mr. Vilalie Seletsu. 9. Being aggrieved Mr. Vilalie Seletsu, filed a Civil Suit before the Court of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Kohima, Nagaland against the State Transport Department which was registered and numbered as Civil Suit No. 2/2007. In the Suit, the Presiding Officer of the Court, in his capacity as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima, Nagaland passed an ex-parte Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2008 decreeing a substantial portion of the NST land to the plaintiff. In the said Civil Suit 2/2007 the plaintiff did not implead the original land owners from whom the Government had purchased the land. 10. Against the ex-parte Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2008, one Mr. Ketshurheilie Kire, who was not a party in Civil Suit 2/2007 filed Civil Appeal No. 2/2009 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kohima, Nagaland for quashing and setting aside the ex-parte Judgment dated 14.07.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima in Civil Suit 2/2007. A Civil Misc case No. 5/2009 was also filed along with the Civil Appeal 2/2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. By Order dated 02.06.2009 the petition for condonation of delay was dismissed. Consequently, Civil Appeal 2/2009 was also dismissed. The Appellant in Civil Appeal 2/2009 was given liberty to re-file the petition as per law. 11. By Order dated 02.06.2009 the petition for condonation of delay was dismissed. Consequently, Civil Appeal 2/2009 was also dismissed. The Appellant in Civil Appeal 2/2009 was given liberty to re-file the petition as per law. 11. Subsequent to the Order dated 02.06.2009, the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2/2009 again filed Civil Suit 1/2009 in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Kohima, Nagaland. The relief sought for in Civil Suit 1/2009 was to set aside and quash the ex-parte Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2008 passed in Civil Suit 2/2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima. 12. The Civil Judge Senior Division, Kohima by Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2010 passed in Civil Suit 1/2009, quashed and set aside the ex-parte Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2008 passed in Civil Suit 2/2007. It is stated that the same Presiding Officer as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima passed the ex-parte Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2008 in Civil Suit 2/2007 and as Civil Judge Senior Division, Kohima in Civil Suit 1/2009 passed the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2010 quashing and setting aside his own ex-parte judgment dated 14.07.2008. 13. Against the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2010 passed in Civil Suit 1/2009 by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Kohima, one Mr. Khrielevizo Seletsu, the legal heir of earlier plaintiff Vilalie Seletsu in Civil Suit 2/2007, preferred a Civil Appeal No. 2/2010 before the court of District Judge, Kohima praying to quash and set aside the Judgment dated 22.03.2010 passed in Civil Suit 1/2009. The Civil Appeal No. 2/2010 was disposed by Order dated 03.05.2012 wherein the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2010 passed in Civil Suit 1/2009 was set aside and the court below was directed to retry the Civil Suit No. 1/2009 from the stage of framing issues. 14. The Civil Suit 1/2009 was however, dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division by Order dated 20.03.2014 on account of non prosecution by the plaintiff. 15. It is stated by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the ex-parte Judgment of 14.07.2008 passed in Civil Suit 2/2007 was a judgment passed by a Magistrate lacking inherent jurisdiction and is therefore a judgment which is non-est and void ab-initio. The defect in the jurisdiction strikes at the very root and authority of the Magistrate to pass such a judgment in a civil case. 16. The defect in the jurisdiction strikes at the very root and authority of the Magistrate to pass such a judgment in a civil case. 16. Since the entire land at NST colony, Kohima acquired by the Government of Nagaland is a public land, a restraining Order dated 13.05.2014 was issued to the plaintiff Khrielevizo Seletsu by the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima. The respondent herein/Lhousakhotuo Vimero also submitted a reply dated 15.05.2014 as he had purchased the disputed land from Shri Vilalie Seletsu. After examining the issue the Deputy Commissioner by Eviction Order dated 12.06.2014 directed the present respondent to vacate the land within fourteen days. 17. Against the Order dated 12.06.2014 the present respondent filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as WP(C) 160 K/14. However, the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to submit an Appeal before the appropriate authority in terms of the provision laid down in Section 12 of the Nagaland Eviction of Person in Unauthorized Occupation of Public Land Act 1971, within a period of seven days. 18. The present respondent therefore submitted an application before the Commissioner Nagaland i.e. the appellate authority which was registered as eviction petition No. 1 (K)2014. The appellate authority, after complying with all the procedural formalities and after hearing the parties issued an order dated 03.02.2016 holding that the land claimed by the present respondent is a public land and reaffirmed the eviction order dated 12.06.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima. 19. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the appellate authority/Commissioner Nagaland the present respondent as writ petitioner approached this Court again by filing WP(C)30(K)/16. This Court after hearing the parties disposed of the writ petition by Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2017. By this Order the petitioner/respondent was directed to approach the Civil Court having jurisdiction within forty five days and till then, the respondents/petitioner herein were directed not to disturb his possession. 20. After disposal of the WP(C)30(K)/2016 the respondent herein as plaintiff filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Kohima which was registered as Civil Suit No. 2/2017. In the Civil Suit the respondents/plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs:- a) Permanent Injunction against the defendant authorities not to interfere the peaceful occupation and possession of the Plaintiff land and House. b) Cost of the Suit. In the Civil Suit the respondents/plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs:- a) Permanent Injunction against the defendant authorities not to interfere the peaceful occupation and possession of the Plaintiff land and House. b) Cost of the Suit. c) Any other relief as may be entitled by the Plaintiff and as may deem fit and proper. The present petitioners are impleaded as defendants 1 and 2 in Civil Suit 2/2017. 21. In the Civil Suit 2/2017 the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 have filed their written statements and the respondent/plaintiff has also filed replication to the written statement. After the pleadings were completed all together 14 issues were framed and the parties have submitted their list of witnesses. 22. The respondents/plaintiff has submitted his Examination-in-Chief, by way of an affidavit. Thereafter, the plaintiff was cross examined by the defendants and a date was fixed for cross examination of PW-2. 23. When matters stood thus, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC praying for amendment of the plaint in Civil Suit 2/2017, to incorporate an additional relief as under:- ”(aa) A decree for declaration of title to the effect that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner in possession of the land measuring 6400 square feet at Megatse, NST Colony, Kohima with the following description North - Private land East - Private land South - Private land Nest - Approach road" 24. The present petitioners as defendents have also filed written objection on the ground that allowing the amendment would amount to changing the nature of the Civil Suit entirely and amendment of the pleadings at this belated stage may not be in the interest of the parties as some of the plaintiff witnesses were already examined. 25. The matter was heard on 27.04.2021 and order was reserved. Thereafter, the impugned Order dated 26.09.2023 was passed allowing the amendment. It is alleged that the impugned Order dated 26.09.2023 was not passed in the open court and the petitioners/defendants were not aware about the existence of the impugned order dated 26.09.2023. As per the cause list the matter was not listed on 26.09.2023. 26. The order dated 26.09.2023 is not an appealable order and therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the power of superintendence by this Court. 27. Learned Sr. As per the cause list the matter was not listed on 26.09.2023. 26. The order dated 26.09.2023 is not an appealable order and therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the power of superintendence by this Court. 27. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 has been filed at a belated stage after trial has already commenced. However, the learned Trial Court has allowed the amendment without taking into account the objections made by the defendants/petitioners. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court should not have allowed the amendment of pleadings as trial had already commenced by leading evidence by examining and cross examining the plaintiff and a date was already fixed for cross examination of PW-2. 28. That it is submitted that when the Civil Suit 2/2017 was filed the relief sought by the respondent/plaintiff was for permanent injunction against the descendent not to interfere with the peaceful occupation and possession of the plaintiff’s land and house. However, by filing the amendment petition, the respondent/plaintiff has prayed for insertion of a prayer for a decree for declaration of title. If the amendment in the prayer portion is allowed, the whole nature of the Suit will be changed inasmuch as the possession and occupation of the land and house of the plaintiff without any specification of the area may be in any form even without a valid title. Possession can be in any form, even adverse possession is a form of possession. But occupation/possession and title/ownership are two different things. By the amendment of the prayer in the plaint the entire nature and character of the suit has completely changed since title over the land and absolute ownership will be decided basing on the amended plaint that too after the trial has commenced. 29. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the learned Trial Court failed to understand the true meaning of commencement of trial. By allowing such amendment, grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner/defendent. Learned counsel further submits that the reasoning of the Trial Court is not supported by any logic and has no basis. 29. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the learned Trial Court failed to understand the true meaning of commencement of trial. By allowing such amendment, grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner/defendent. Learned counsel further submits that the reasoning of the Trial Court is not supported by any logic and has no basis. The learned Trial Court did not consider the fact that the Civil Suit was filed on 04.07.2017 and the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed only in the year 2020 and therefore, the learned Trial Court could not have come to a conclusion that there was no lack of due diligence or negligence on the part of the plaintiff/respondent. And learned Trial Court could not have come to a finding that the basic structure of the Suit would not be altered by the proposed amendment. Learned counsel therefore prays that the impugned Order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Kohima in Civil MISC Case No. 2/2020 in Civil Suit 2/2017 may be quashed and set aside. 30. Learned counsel also submits that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 states that after the commencement of the trial, an application for amendment should not be allowed unless the court is satisfied that the amendment could not have been made earlier, despite due diligence. 31. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of (i) BASAVARAJ Vrs INDIRA AND OTHERS in (2024) 3 SCC 705 , and (ii) REVAJEETU BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vrs NARAYANASWAMY AND SONS AND OTHERS in (2009) 10 SCC 84 in support of his submissions. 32. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that no prejudice would be caused to the State defendants/petitioners by the impugned Order. Learned Counsel submits that the application for amendment has been filed in order to avoid multiplicity of suits. It is submitted that the amendment was filed in order to allow the court to decide the real issue and the defendants/petitioners have all the liberty to recall the witness and cross examine further, if so advised. 33. It is further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent had prayed only for amendment of the prayer portion and not the pleadings. And therefore, amendment of the prayer portion does not change the character of the suit. The real question in controversy can be decided only by allowing the amendment. 33. It is further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent had prayed only for amendment of the prayer portion and not the pleadings. And therefore, amendment of the prayer portion does not change the character of the suit. The real question in controversy can be decided only by allowing the amendment. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Order VI Rule 17 CPC allows the party to alter or amended their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings provided, it is necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties. The trial court has the discretion to allow such amendments, subject to certain conditions and can impose terms as it deems fit. The amendment should not cause injustice or prejudice to the other parties. Learned counsel further submits that the settled law is that courts should avoid a hyper technical approach and be generally liberal in allowing amendments. 34. Learned Senior Counsel has relied on the cases of: i) SAMPATH KUMAR VRS AYYAKANNU AND ANOTHER , in (2002) 7 SCC 559 . ii) GURBAKHSH SINGH AND OTHERS VRS BUTA SINGH AND ANOTHER in (2018) 6 SCC 567 iii) OUSEPH MATHAI AND OTHERS VRS M. ABDUL KHADIR in (2002) 1 SCC 319 . Learned Senior Counsel prays that the impugned Order dated 26.09.2023 in Civil Misc Case No. 2/2020 in Civil Suit 2/2017 does not warrant the interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 35 . The Court has given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel. The authorities relied upon and the trial court records have been perused. 36 . Order VI Rule 17 provides a mechanism for parties to refine their pleadings and present their case in a manner that best reflects the true nature of the dispute, promoting fair and just outcomes in legal proceedings. The primary goal of an amendment is to ensure that the court can effectively determine the real issue in dispute between the parties. The court can allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings even after the commencement of the trial. In the case of Gurbakhsh Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the application of amendment was preferred after two witnesses were examined. The court held that the nature of amendment as proposed neither changes the character and nature of the suit nor does it introduce any fresh ground. In the case of Gurbakhsh Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the application of amendment was preferred after two witnesses were examined. The court held that the nature of amendment as proposed neither changes the character and nature of the suit nor does it introduce any fresh ground. The amendment could not have caused any prejudice to the defendants. 37. In the case of Sampath Kumar (Supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a question as to whether it is permissible to convert through an amendment a Suit merely for permanent injunction into a Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Supreme Court was of the view that the basic structure of the Suit was not altered by the proposed amendment. What was sought to be changed was the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. It was open to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit. The court held that if it was permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new Suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court stated that allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings. In the cited case of Sampath Kumar (Supra), the amendment was being sought after almost eleven years from the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff was not debarred from instituting a new Suit seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Supreme Court stated that in order to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be a sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession being sought in the pending suit. 38. In the case of Ouseph Mathai & Others (Supra), the Supreme Court held that Article 227 of the Constitution of India confers a right of superintendence upon the High Court over all courts and tribunal throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said article as a matter of right. The Court held that in fact powers under this article cast a duty upon the high court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and tribunals in accordance with law conferring powers within the ambit of the enactments creating such courts and tribunals. The Supreme Court went on to state only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and tribunal resulting in grave injustice to any party. 39. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner are on the principles of law regarding Order VI Rule 17 CPC. While agreeing with the principles, the facts are distinguishable in the present case. This Court is of the view that the amendment allowed by the Trial Court in the present case does not change the character of the Suit. No amendment is sought in the pleadings and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants/petitioners as all consequential steps such as amendment in written statements, filing additional evidence or recalling witnesses are legally permissible to ensure fair trial. In fact the amendment in the prayer portion will assist the court to decide the real question in controversy and allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings. With regard to the delay in pronouncing the order in CMC No. 2/2020 arising out of Civil Suit No. 2/2017, this Court has already dealt with the issue in Civil Revision 4/2023 whereby vide Order dated 19.09.2023 this Court directed the Civil Judge Senior Division Kohima to pronounce the Order within one month. 40. Be that as it may, in Rajendra Diwanvrs Pradeep Kumar Ranibala , (2019) 20 SCC 143 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “85. The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, however, supervisory and not appellate. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence must be exercised sparingly, to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority. When a Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction, the High Court does not interfere in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction unless there is grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence must be exercised sparingly, to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority. When a Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction, the High Court does not interfere in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction unless there is grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law. Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised ‘in the cloak of an appeal in disguise’. 86. In exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence and/or judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts restrict interference to cases of patent error of law which go to the root of the decision; perversity; arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness; violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and usurpation of powers. The High Court does not reassess or re-analyse the evidence and/or materials on record….The writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be converted into an alternative appellate forum, just because there is no other provision of appeal in the eye of the law.” 41. The exercise of discretion by the Trial Court under Order VI Rule 17 cannot be stated to be a case of patent error of law which goes to the root of the decision; perverse; arbitrary and/or unreasonable; in violation of principles of natural justice, without lack of jurisdiction and usurpation of powers so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 42. In view of the above observations and discussion, this Court is of the view that the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 43. The learned Trial Court shall allow all consequential steps such as amendment in written statements, filing additional evidence or recalling witnesses to ensure a fair trial. 44. The interim order passed on 07.05.2024 stands vacated. The Registry shall send back the trial court records expeditiously.